4 ms·

>And if your emulator is too good, what stops ISVs from saying “you did it for us, we don’t have to care”? So once again they don’t have to do it at all and you

by snvzz 2y ago

>And if your emulator is too good, what stops ISVs from saying “you did it for us, we don’t have to care”? So once again they don’t have to do it at all and you have no native software. x86 emulation enables adoption. Adoption means having an user base. Having an user base means developers will consider making the platform a target. >Saying “Ha ha, just kidding, it’s RISC-V now” would be a disaster. Would it now? If anything, offering RISC-V support as well would further reinforce the idea that Windows is ISA-independent, and not tied to x86 anymore.

MBCook 2y ago
> If anything, offering RISC-V support as well would further reinforce the idea that Windows is ISA-independent, and not tied to x86 anymore. Anymore? It’s been independent since the 90s. It’s only ISVs that have been an issue. And a rug pull is a fantastic way to scare all the ISVs far far away.
- snvzz 2y ago
  Whose's rug would even be pulled?
- 6SixTy 2y ago
  You sure? Microsoft dropped Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC by the time Windows 2000 rolled around. Beyond that point, only the Xbox 360 and Itanium versions had anything different to the usual X86/64 offering.
  - MBCook 2y ago
    While there was only one popular choice, they’ve always kept it flexible. That was a core design decision. But, as an example, Windows Phone 8 and later were based on the NT kernel. You already mentioned the 360.
numpad0 2y ago
Switching CPU architecture is not about changing a compilation option, it's about eliminating centuries old assembly codes, binaries, and third party components and re-engineering everything to be self hosted on-prem at the company. Commercial software companies are reckless and stupid lazy and unbelievably inept, so lots of them won't be able to do this, especially for the second time. In case this translation was needed at all. The point is the point is not a "-riscv" compilation option.

by snvzz 2y ago

MBCook 2y ago

> If anything, offering RISC-V support as well would further reinforce the idea that Windows is ISA-independent, and not tied to x86 anymore. Anymore? It’s been independent since the 90s. It’s only ISVs that have been an issue. And a rug pull is a fantastic way to scare all the ISVs far far away.

snvzz 2y ago
Whose's rug would even be pulled?
6SixTy 2y ago
You sure? Microsoft dropped Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC by the time Windows 2000 rolled around. Beyond that point, only the Xbox 360 and Itanium versions had anything different to the usual X86/64 offering.
- MBCook 2y ago
  While there was only one popular choice, they’ve always kept it flexible. That was a core design decision. But, as an example, Windows Phone 8 and later were based on the NT kernel. You already mentioned the 360.

numpad0 2y ago

Switching CPU architecture is not about changing a compilation option, it's about eliminating centuries old assembly codes, binaries, and third party components and re-engineering everything to be self hosted on-prem at the company. Commercial software companies are reckless and stupid lazy and unbelievably inept, so lots of them won't be able to do this, especially for the second time. In case this translation was needed at all. The point is the point is not a "-riscv" compilation option.